Loading...

Pastoral Epistles - Lesson 5

1 Timothy 2:1–10

Paul begins a two chapter discussion on issues of leadership in the Ephesian church. He begins by critiquing their habit of praying only for some people, which shows their legalistic way of looking at salvation. Then he deals with issues of public worship, first men then women. These are issues that the leaderhip should have been dealing with but most likely were being caused by poor leadership.

Bill Mounce
Pastoral Epistles
Lesson 5
Watching Now
1 Timothy 2:1–10

1 Timothy 2:1–7

False teachers were elitists

Reason #1 — God wants all people to be saved (2:3-4)

Reason #2: Jesus died for all people (2:5-6

Reason #3: Paul is missionary to the Gentiles (2:7)

1 Timothy 2:8–10

Men's disruptive behavior in worship (2:8)

Not saying you have to raise your hands

Is saying hands must be holy

Doesn’t specify what they were angry about

Women's disruptive behavior in worship (2:9–10)

1. Extravagant

2. Sexually enticing

3. Not just clothing, but attitudes, values, priorities

Solution — beautiful where it matters

Not saying women can’t wear jewelry

Major interpretive issue: “woman” or “wife”


Lessons
About
Class Resources
Transcript
  • Dr. Mounce introduces himself and covers the traditional issues in introductions, including his historical reconstruction of the writing and history behind the Pastorals, basic misconceptions people have of the Pastorals, and the survey of the critical issues often raised.

  • Paul begins by reminding Timothy of an earlier visit, and encourages Timothy to stay on at Ephesus, dealing with the issues in the church. Paul's goal is love, which stands in stark contrast to the work of the false teachers. Throughout 1 Timothy 1, Dr. Mounce is enumerating the ways in which Timothy (and we) should deal with false teaching.

  • Paul gives the theological argument up front as to why the false teachers were wrong and Timothy needs to silence them. They are legalists, applying the Mosaic Law to all Chrsitians. Rather, salvation is by God's mercy and grace as seen in Paul's conversion. But things have gotten bad in Ephesus, and Paul had to take a firm stance on dealing with two of the leaders of the opposition.

  • Having looked at the core teaching on why the false teachers were wrong, the class now looks at the other main pasages in the Pastorals that deal theologically with the false teaching.

  • Paul begins a two chapter discussion on issues of leadership in the Ephesian church. He begins by critiquing their habit of praying only for some people, which shows their legalistic way of looking at salvation. Then he deals with issues of public worship, first men then women. These are issues that the leaderhip should have been dealing with but most likely were being caused by poor leadership.

  • While this paragraph is not a matter of orthodoxy, it is nevertheless important since there are so many women in the church. Paul lays out the basic principle that women should learn with a submissive attitude, and then restates that principle with an eye to application; they cannot teach certain people in certain situations. Paul looks to the pre-Fall creation and the relationship that Adam and Eve were created to fulfill, and then spells out a consequence of what happens when that relationship is not honored. Because Paul references Genesis 2 and not Genesis 3, this is not a cultural teaching but transcultural.

  • After dealing with some questions, the class resumes by finishing the last two verses in chapter 2.

  • Paul gives four basic requirements for the leaders of a church. He beghins by emphasizing that leadership is a good thing and insists that leaders must be a certain kind of person, a person's who character is above repreoach. To appoint unqualified people to leadership is a sin, and those appointing them share in the responsibiiltiy when they fail and damage the church. But elders must also have a proven managerial ability of people, be spiritually mature, and have a good reputation in the eyes of people outside the church.

  • We conclude our discussion of elders by looking at two other passages on the role, Titus 1:5–9 and 1 Timothy 5:17–25.

  • We now move into the discussion of deacons in 1 Tim 3:8–13. There is much overlap between elders and deacons, and yet deacons are more involved in the day-to-day service of the church and are not required to be able to teach. The major interpretive decision is in v 11 as to whether it refers to women (i.e., deaconnesses) or wives (of the deacons).

  • This paragraph is the heart of the letter, putting everything that Paul has been discussing into perspective and giving it context. The church is precious, and we should protect the gospel because of the truths it teaches.

  • Paul goes back to addressing the needs of the Ephesian church. He deals in summary fashion with people of different ages, with a special note of concern for Timothy in how he deals with young women, which leads him into a discussion of young widows. His concern is that the church care for those who are "truly widows," i.e., who are old, truly alone, and have lived godly lives. Younger widows, however, should remarry and not burden the church. The church has limited resources, and it should initially care for those who are the most vulnerable.

  • Paul concludes his letter with a series of different and not always related topics. He deals with slaves, and begins to lay the groundwork for abolition, gives Timothy two tests for correct theology and spells out the download spiral and eventual destruction of the false teacher especially related to their love of money, and then encourages Timothy three ways. And in proper biblical fashion, he concludes with a doxology. The final paragraph (skipped by Dr. Mounce, is a final word to the rich in the church and a final plea to Timothy to be careful.

  • Most of the content of Titus has been covered in the lectures over 1 Timothy. However, the letter does have something to add to the discussion of leadership, and its two salvific hymns raise the issue of the reationship between justification and sanctification.

  • Paul begins his letter to his best friend by encouraging him to continue in ministry. If ever there were a model for how you encourage someone, especially someone who looks up to you, this is the chapter. The best thing you can do is find how many ways Paul encourages Timothy, and then see how to apply those points in your own life and ministry.

  • Paul concludes his encouragement to Timothy, and points out examples of faithless friends, and of one faithful friend.

  • Paul continues to encourage the discouraged Timothy, reminding him of the glorious gospel that he proclaims. Even if Paul himself is bound, the gospel is not.

  • The false teachers come back into view with a strong emphasis on Timothy's need to remain faithful. But the encouragement is that God's foundation in Timothy's life, and others, is sealed with a promise, and yet Timothy must also pursue righteousness and flee evil. Paul uses his own life as an example of faithfulness, and concludes with a strong admonition to preach the gospel because it comes from the very mouth of God.

  • Paul concludes his discussion of the role of Scripture in Timothy's life, reminding Timothy of Paul's own life of faithfulness. Paul makes some personal remarks about a few people, and references his final trial. He knows he will die, but death is merely a loosening.

The Pastoral Epistles contain some of the most practical advice in the New Testament. Learn how to handle heresy, appoint qualified leaders, take care of those who may not be able to care for themselves, and especially how to encourage one another in ministry. Titus alone contains two of the most powerful salvific statements in all of Scripture. These 13 chapters are worth studying.

Pastoral Epistles

Dr. Bill Mounce

nt630-05

1 Timothy 2:1–10

Lesson Transcript

 

Yesterday, we looked at issues of false teaching and how Timothy is to handle the his opponents. And today, we're going to move into the whole issue of leadership. What Paul does is initially deal with the issue on a theological basis. First Timothy one, and now he's going to move into some more of the structural issues that there's still theology in it, but we're getting a little more practical, a little more structural in his answer of how to deal with the issue. And in first Timothy 2127, he's dealing with actually something that's slightly more theological, and that is a sectarian attitude. And then starting at first aid, he moves into issues of corporate disruption, disruption which leads to leadership and the women's passage, which then leads into elders and then into deacons in the summation at the end of chapter three. So first, Timothy two, 1 to 7 is somewhat of a self standing unit, and then he's going to get into that. It goes from one eight pretty much through to the end of three is a without Paul taking a breath basically. So that's what we're going to look at today. So we're going to start in first Timothy two 1 to 7. You remember he's just excommunicated Alexander and Arminius, and that's where we ended the story last time. So Paul begins in chapter two, first of all, then and probably in first of all, in terms of importance as well as first of all, temporally now that he's addressing the the practical situation. First of all, then I urge that supplications prayers, intercessions and Thanksgiving be made for all people. And then, as you can see in the phrasing, he wants to stress that the all includes kings and those who are in high positions.

 

In other words, when I say all people, I mean all people, including secular leaders. And the fact that Paul has to point that out tells us the problem, doesn't it? The apparently the false teachers in emphasis were elitist sectarians. They cared only about their own little group, their click, their friends, and in fact, they cared so much just about their little group of people, their little sect, that they wouldn't even pray for people outside. And so the the fact that they weren't praying for people outside the little group shows how sectarian there are, how they are. And so Paul says, well, the way we're going to begin dealing with the problem is to make sure that you're praying, in fact, for all people. Then he spells out the the reason why he wants them praying for all people. He says that the end goal of this is that we may lead a peaceful and a quiet life. And I know in your phrasing, I have godly and dignified in every way parallel. It might be better to say what is what is a peaceful and quiet life. It is the life that is godly and dignified in every way. Or he may be just saying there's there's two goals. What kind of life you want, you want to lead. I want you to be a lead, a peaceful and quiet life. I want you to be able to lead a life that is godly and dignified in every way. One of the real advantages of phrasing is that it forces you to ask those questions. And when I'm preaching, I preach right down the phrasing. I it's just it's I think it's a very effective expository preaching to say things like, you know, I urge you to to make all these prayers.

 

And the reason why you remember words, you're asking what is the relationship between the phrase I urge and that we may lead? And I think it's helpful in preaching to say now the the result or the goal of this urging. And then what you're specifying that relationship is that they may lead a certain kind of life. What kind of life does Paul want them to lead, where he gives to characteristics of the life? He wants the life to be peaceful and quiet. He wants the life to be godly and dignified. I just I use phrasing all the time. And in fact, when we had a PowerPoint up, it was normally just bulleted points. But if I had a really difficult passage to preach, I put the phrasing up on the PowerPoint and it's our screens are big enough that you could see it, which is kind of a prerequisite. But the people very quickly picked up what phrasing was, and they really appreciated me breaking things into smaller units and showing their relationship stuff. So it's actually, I think, a very good way to preach. But this is in a class. On how melodic, so we'll get back to actually Jesus. Paul is not saying that he wants Christians to be passive. That's sometimes this verse has been misunderstood to teach that basically he wanted the Ephesians to move off and go out in the country somewhere and live in relative obscurity and not being involved in the rest of the world. And that's not at all what he's saying. He's saying, I want you to live in such a way that the gospel, the spread of the gospel is not hindered. And apparently the efficient church was in enough of a mess that it was impeding the spread of the gospel.

 

And he says, don't do that. It just guys got to live a life where you're not unnecessarily disruptive, we might say, but you need a peaceful and quiet life. You need be godly, you need to be dignified. But it doesn't mean that you have to be completely separated out from reality. And then he gives and I vacillate on this sometimes I say there's three reasons. Sometimes I. I think there's four reasons you can make up your own mind. But he gives at least three reasons why it's so important that they pray for all people. And again, understand. I don't think that the issue is prayer. I think it's the issue of what does a prayer represent? They were so close minded to those outside of their own little circle that they weren't extending themselves and refusing to pray for the president and the Congress and your state representatives would be our parallel. The refusal to pray for them, while that's a significant thing, it shows a mindset that's not right. It shows a mindset of withdrawing from reality. And so he wants them engaged in life in Ephesus. And the prayer is just the way that the kind of the platform that he uses to discuss it. So anyway, there are three reasons why they are to pray for all people, why they are to extend themselves outside their little click. The first is in verse three. He says, This is good. It's pleasing in the sight of God, our savior. And then he stipulates he clarify something about the nature of God that's relevant, and that is that God desires all people. Again, that's where the emphasis is, all people. You're you're not praying for some people. God's desires that all people be saved.

 

God's desire is that all people come to a knowledge of the truth. In other words, the first reason why you should be praying for all people is that it is an inherently good thing to do. And it is good because it's pleasing to God. Now it is possible to break this series into two reasons, and St Paul's first reason is that it's just good to do this. The second reason is that it pleases God. So you just again, you have to decide what Paul's flow of thought. Here is one of the charges against the author, the second century author of the pastoral If you Don't Believe in Pauline's authorship, is that he they say, Well, you're a universalist. And we know that Paul is not a universalist. And so they attack the Pauline, the the pastoral definition of of salvation. You can only say that by ignoring the rest of the pastoral, uh, the by the pastoral is, are very, very clear that the author is not a Universalists first Timothy 410, Titus 211 and other passages that really emphasize that salvation is something that only comes to a group. This this, of course, is a is a hot topic in the whole Calvinist Wesleyan divide. And my Calvinist buddies will say that, well, he desires all groups of people, that he, God desires salvation to be experienced by people in all groups, whether they be kings and those in high positions or those who don't have civil authority or whatever. And, um, my answer and I are a Calvinist, is that that's simply not what the text says, whatever you want to do with this passage. That is not the answer. I don't think you can say any more clearly that God wants all people to be saved other than God wants all people to be saved.

 

I mean, I don't know how she would say it. And I really think if Paul had wanted. People from all different groups, all different walks of life to be saved. There's. He would have said it. So I think you have to come to some other way to handle this versus my normal line is that if your theological doctrine cannot handle the statement, God wants all people to be saved, then there's something wrong with your doctrine. And what you don't want to do is to start messing with the text. I am very comfortable with the secret will and the revealed will of God, the absolute will of God. And I mean those all those divisions that you have learned in your theology classes. I'm very comfortable with that, that God does in a very honest way, want to see all people save. He will not force all people to be saved. He does not work with all people the same way. I know for our best friends who are not believers, we wish that he would treat them like he treated Paul and basically not give them a choice. Gary Bashir is the systematic prof at Western Seminary is the first guy I've ever heard of that says when it comes to the whole issue of election and free will, that God doesn't have to treat people the same way. If some people, Gary says, don't have a choice, God elect some, they're saved. This God makes a choice for them. For other people. He gives them a choice and he enables them to respond. Some respond, some don't. I'm still processing that. I've never I've never heard that before. But I've learned that when Gary says things, you should at least stop and listen to him.

 

But I think whatever our doctrine is, we have to be able to say God does truly want all people to say if he does not delight in the destruction of the wicked. But he did in our context. He says, I almost quoted a Bible verse, Did I get it right? I want to make sure I got it right. God takes no delight in the destruction of the wicked. That's the verse, isn't it? If we were on video, I would say, Well, yeah, that's what the verse says. Move on. But somebody there will be checking me, I'm sure. Anyway, the reason we pray for all people, the reason we don't live in close communities, is that it's good and pleasing, that we extend ourselves to those around God. One salvation offered to all people. It's one of the reasons I'm not a double pro-death scenario. I don't care what Romans nine says that whatever Vessels of Wrath are, that it's I just can not I can't put scripture together and say that God actively predestined people for help. I just don't think that's what Romans nine is saying. But I do believe that at a very broad stroke, God wants all people to be saved, but he's not going to make all people saved. I wanted to. Look. Pray for the rulers. It creates a civil atmosphere which can go right over so that we need stop. You know, some of the contrarians get this notion that the church was always rabble around, you know. There's no place for peace there for the second century. Now, as stable as now, always a stable status quo. Good at one gym. At one level. At one level. Who's on the throne? Nero. I'm a human. The humans are.

 

I think you get a good answer. God's on the throne. But. I mean, if we have our timing right. Nero's on the throne. So, um, you know, it. It's not like everything is hunky dory in Rome. Um. But I understand people. It constantly. Yeah, but there's no place. Yeah. In this. Relaxed atmosphere rose version. And. Yeah. Yeah. While wildfires. Good for spiritual growth. Yeah, I, I, I don't know. I don't know. I don't. I don't grow spiritually, individually, when everything's calm, really. No, no, I don't I know virtually no people that grow in faith when there's not a challenge. Um, you know, the China, the growth of the Chinese church is evidence of what happens when you persecute the first couple hundred years of the church or evidence of what happens when you get persecuted. I used to preach that there's very little wrong with the American church that couldn't get fixed with some persecution. So I'm not I'm not sure that when everything is calm, hunky dory, that people just start growing. I think certainly things like what we have currently in North Korea, that kind of opposition does hurt the growth of the gospel. And yet the gospel is growing in North Korea. It's a. So I don't know. I don't know. I've never heard anyone say that before. But I am learning that that's your role in this class, to say things that I've never heard of before. Anyway, Paul. Paul wants the unnecessary stuff to go away. I'll grant you that. And he. He doesn't want unnecessary rabble rousing. He wants the Gospel to spread through all areas of society because this is pleasing to him and God. God has his children in all different areas. So anyway, reason number one.

 

Excuse me. God has his. God wants all people to be saved. That is his overall desire. It doesn't mean he's going to force it to happen. The second reason he gives is in verses of five and six. And the second reason is that Jesus died for all people. The minute you stop praying for all people, the minute you start saying that certain people are outside of God's ability to save or God's desire to save, you are running counter to the fact that when Jesus died on the cross, he died for all people. Again, you can hear I don't like limited atonement. I don't like the concept of limited atonement. I understand it. I the way I see it is that the salvation, the cross is sufficient to save all who come in true repentance. Yeah. This particular otome. Yeah. And the reason I'm comfortable with that is that I don't think. I think our sins are forgiven at conversion. Not on the cross. So I don't have things. I don't have the theological push to that limit. Atonement does. But anyway, I keep this is such a theological passage. I better be careful. Jesus died for all people. And therefore, the offer of gospel, the gospel and the prayers that should accompany the offer. Salvation is in line with the very fact that Jesus did die for all people and will save all people who come to him. So he goes. There is one God. In other words, there's there's there's no possibility of salvation anywhere else. Right. This is the uniqueness of of of God, the uniqueness of Christ. The the one path that leads to heaven, not multiple paths. There's only one God. So Buddha's not going to save you, and Mohammed is not going to save you, and all is not going to save you.

 

All right. There's only one God. It's Yahweh, and there's only one mediator between God and men. And we're going to come back and tell you why I used a male oriented term there. But there's only one mediator between God and human beings. In other words, if if Jesus isn't the vehicle by which people are saved, if people are not praying that Jesus is, it gets that somebody responds to the claims of Jesus. There is no other way to get to God. Okay, So this is I am the way the truth in life. No one comes to the father, but by me I mean you can't say to me, Clear that. And this one mediator is himself human. His name is Christ Jesus. And this particular human being gave himself as a ransom for all. You know, there's there's all kinds of reasons in there, aren't there, for why we should offer salvation to all people. We should preach to all people. We should pray for all people. There's only one God. So there's no salvation apart from Yahweh. There's only one way to get to him, and that's the Jesus. And Jesus's death on the cross was and was a substitution. Very atonement, a ransoming, a price paid for freedom delivered. But it was offered for all people. The curtain in the temple was torn completely in two. I mean, I think that's my thing is probably my favorite symbolic act in all the Bible and is torn from the top. Right. It is torn that there is full access to the presence of God, the father, which I think is a unifying theme all the way through the Bible. That's one reason I like the imagery of the the temple being torn. I think we were created for relationships with one another horizontally, relationships with God vertically.

 

I think the major theme is that I will be their God and they will be my people. He creates Eden so that that can happen is destroyed by sin. The curtain is torn in two to reestablish the relationship and the picture we have of heaven is the second Eden, this time without sin. So this whole business, there's one God. There's one way to get to him. It's through Jesus Christ. And his death on the cross was a ransom for all. So who are we to limit? Our prayers. Who are we to limit the work of God and the offer of salvation? Now, the reason that I'm using male oriented language is because of the the Greek that weaves its way through this passage. And again, in this day and age, it's impossible to translate it. But if you look at the Greek well, if you look at the English, she says, first of all, then back in verse one, I pray that supplications prayers, intercessions and Thanksgiving made for all men its answer upon. Now, in this day and age, no one's going to translate that all men, because then the women wonder if they also should be part of the prayers. All right. The reason that's so important, though, is that the word Anthropocene is what ties this whole passage together. You're to pray the message, to use the male or indeed language you to pray for all men. Because there's only one mediator between God and men. A man. Christ Jesus. So you can see how the words tie together and the different translations really foster this. In fact, I think that the. The Nivi 2011, which I guess we just need to call the nib now since the 84 is gone forever.

 

Um. That's when I'm in the wrong. Translation Let me see what we did. If there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. But even up in verse four, it's. Yeah. Versus the other place. Yeah. Okay, let me start over again now. I urge then, first of all, the petitions, first intercessions and Thanksgiving be made for all people. Verse four Who wants all people to be saved? Verse five one Mediator between God and mankind. The Man, Christ Jesus. Those are the four uses of Arthur in the passage. And so it's just it's really hard to translate this, even the ESV. I went with people in verse one. I there may be a footnote. Is there a footnote on that word in the ESV? Maybe our relationship. I understand functions that that is. Or for calendars. Yeah. It, it, it is the word for men and for human beings. The but the here's, here's the problem. What would make people think for the person? I don't see that this is stretching the manhood. No, it is. And that's the point, right? It's not stretching the maleness that Jesus has stressed in the humanity of Jesus. But why do you think translators don't like to use the word person and people? Do you know? Word starts with the plosives. They're ugly words. You don't you know, it's not good English style is not good English style. So if you start say person that between here's how you would say it. Um, for there's one God and there's one mediate between God and people. The person Christ Jesus is the only other way you can do it. And that's just ugly English. Well, it's.

 

Or you understand that mankind is the generic word, and most people will still hear it generically. And Jesus was a man. Although the point isn't that he was male. It was that he was human. Yeah. Person. And people are interesting words in translation. I tend to like them. Because it avoids so many problems in translation. But that initial plus of the peace zone is just an ugly sound. And especially when you get America. Americans can handle ugly. Your sounds easier. And I am an American because you can say we say a right instead of are. You know, you hear a British, you're say the vowels, they soften their vowels and they really don't like. So when you're writing a translation that's universal, you've got some problems, which is a trust message for every one of us. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. It's just. It's. It's. When I went to Guantanamo, when I was applying for the position, they wanted me to lecture on something. So I lecture on this passage that. That I'm going to I'm going to grab this bull by the horns, and let's just raise the gender issue, because I know that's going to be the issue. And there is no way apart from using men and men to really translate this passage properly because you just lose the flow. So I think what the ESV did was good by saying people at the beginning and then footnote ing saying this is the same word used in three other times to tie the passage together. But so if we can use person and people pray for all people pray for all people because God wants all people to be saved, there's one mediator between God and people. It's a person. It's Christ Jesus.

 

Thanksgiving should be made for all humans because God died for all humans. There's one mediator between God and humans. A human Christ. Jesus is very theologically accurate. But many people hear the word human in an intensely impersonal way. I do. I don't like the word human. I hear I hear science fiction. I hear a depersonalization. So I. I don't like the word human. Personally, I have no doubt that while humankind thankfully never caught on, it is going away, at least in 2000. What year? 2013. You know, maybe in 2023. Someone's watching the video. They go when we say humankind all the time. Well, right now, humankind, you say humankind. It almost always is a theological trigger for people. Oh, he's one of those those people. Anyway, that's that's the theme that's pulling this all together. And it's just a it's a this is the hardest passage, I believe, in the Bible to translate when it comes to gender language, because the tying the four uses of anthropologists are so crucial to understand what's being said. So you can use human or person people however you want. But the second reason that we pray for all human beings is only one God. There's only win one mediator between God and human beings. And that mediator is himself a human being. And he gave his life as a ransom for all because his father was desirous that all human beings be offered salvation. See the floor that. It was a it was a fun lecture. Gordon Kohn Well, I think they were a little shocked that I was willing to face that issue as straight as I did. Yeah, but I mean, when you see, you know, the Navy is not rabid on this gender stuff. I mean, it will use, um.

 

It will use man and he when it needs to and I appreciate that about the committee. Um but even here when you have when you see someone like the Navy use the word mankind, uh, that's a real signal that there's something really important going on. Because generically, that's not one of the words we tend to use. Yeah. About the reasons here. More than once, all people will be saved from the freezing. Is it possible to take. That we could be invisible. Want to play. Yeah, it's either a reason or. Yeah, you could. I mean, the the breaking this thing up is this passage is hard. How many reasons are there? I want you to pray for all people because of the kind of life I want you to live. It's just that that didn't feel to be on the same par with the theology that of the following reasons. So. So I just said it's a result. This is this is the result of where we're going. Now, let me give you the reasons why that's so important. And I think probably it's a little more result than a reason. A very spiritual reason. Well, they think that it is self life. No. We're trying to decide whether to be should be a reason as well as self. It was very important to you that then I think you would want to make that a reason why we pray for our people. Number one, to live a peaceful life. You got to understand that's not my personality. Peaceful life has never been a goal for me. GET Yeah, yeah. You can divide it up any way you guys want. Let me check my notes here. I was working humanity. So if you translate this mediator between God and humanity and man, you can again in in some circles, humanity is one of those liberal words that you use when you're trying to neuter the language of scripture.

 

It's a hot button, same way humankind is and stuff like that. You know that. The thing is that English is right smack in the middle of changing. That's what's so hard in translation. Um, Zondervan spent an awful lot of money. I don't know if it's public, but it's she took a lot of books to pay for what they paid for, and they hired the Collins Dictionary. People do have a 4.4 billion word database that they can search semantically and trying to figure out where is English going, and not just English in the States, but English around the world. Do you know where the largest block of English speakers in the world is? India. And China is almost number two. So we're going to be the third largest English speaking block in the world in just a little bit. And so Donovan wanted to make sure that that the committee had the tools to figure out what is generally accepted English. And what they found is in about the mid-nineties, all this male oriented language like man and he in about a two year period in use, has just plummeted, just dropped. People were desperately trying to find other words to use. And then just as quickly at the end of the nineties, it shot the male learning language shot up and the words man and he were being used generically more than they were in the early nineties. So the Christian community tried to find another word and they couldn't. And so they went back to where they used to talk. And then what's happening is that it's slowly, gradually lowering and less and less people are using he and man and mankind. What's coming back is the word they. They in Shakespeare's day was an indefinite pronoun.

 

Well, it it was an indefinite referent. It can refer to singular. It could refer to plural. It didn't matter. And so you read Shakespeare, you can say, you know, blessed is the man who by the fourth day. And that's how I speak. I use they as an indefinite all the time. It's it's I'm comfortable doing it. If it's really close to a singular and a seed and it still is a little hard. But they is it's there's no question that they is becoming the pronoun of choice. We're not going to go to he, she or, you know, all these other ways of doing things and saying he in one sentence and she in the other, which is so I think disruptive and just poor style. Um, but the pronoun they is clearly going to be the pronoun of choice. So, um, when I've been speaking with you, I'm sure I'm doing it. I don't even know if you've picked it up. The problem is we hear they as singular. Now it's a little harder to see they in print as singular. That makes it a little harder. But you can still do it them once you commit to they you're really committed to them. And them is much more plural than it is singular still. And themselves is only plural. And there is no English word themself. Now, I, I would guess in ten years themself will be a standard word in the English language. And it sounds weird, doesn't it? But yeah, I really think that. Yeah, well. So you're correct for their choice of words. Should the mayor of Chicago, Emanuel style all the style books, except they is referring back to a singular no. And for the stat, the stats that we have seen say that there's no question that we're going back to there being a singular.

 

So that's where the language is going, whether we like it or not. You know, what happened was it was it was the Latin grammarians that messed everything up, do you know? You know, split infinitives are good is good English style. IT style is really getting away from the power rules here in English it's proximity and say to quickly learn is much better English then they quickly to learn or to learn quickly because we only use we use proximity. So the adverb has to be right with the verb. But English was in a mess and around the mid 1800s, so the Latin grammarians got hold of English and forced Latin grammar on English. Latin grammar can't split infinitives. And if you pick up like writing, well, now if you sign writing, well, it's as if you all do much writing and get this book is a professor down in Texas, I think called writing Well. Um. No, no, I'm sorry. That's Zinser on writing. Well, that's worth reading. And then. Start writing with style. Oh, shoot. I'm sorry, I forgot. But he talks about how, thankfully, we're to a point in English grammar now where we can go back to doing English, not Latin, and we can split infinitives, of which I love to split. Minimum. Anyway, we better get back here. English is in a huge state of flux with gender language. The South and the North are radically different. Rural and urban are radically different. Of East and West coasts are pretty much the same. You can you get a group of people together. I mean, just. Just think of barbecue. What's a barbecue? Well, it depends upon what state in the south you're from, right? Uh, it's it's the, the male oriented language is in that same kind of state of flux.

 

But it's there's no question that they is going to become the pronoun we use. Don't have to use it if you don't want to, but that's what's happening. But under his playing words. Yeah, I know, I know. That's why I used the illustration. Okay. Okay. All right. So the second at least the second perhaps maybe the fifth or sixth reason that we should pray for all people that we should focus in on our clicks is that there's only one God. There's only one way to get to the God. And it's Jesus and his ransom that he provided on the cross was for all who would believe, and therefore we should be praying for all people. Paul then goes on to what I have listed as the third reason. Perhaps the 20th reason, however you want to count them. And he says for this reason. I was appointed a preacher. I was appointed an apostle. And I was appointed a teacher of the Gentiles. And he said, So the third reason is the reason you should be praying for everyone is just look at the scope of my ministry. Look at what I do. I have been called to be a missionary to the Gentiles. Why would you exclude the very people for whom I'm spending my life sharing the good news of Jesus Christ? That phrase I am telling the truth. I am not lying is a very, very, I think, interesting statement because. Why would he have to convince Timothy that he's telling the truth? So here's one of those indicators that by now Paul is really expecting the Vision Church to be reading Timothy over Timothy shoulder. And I am not sure whether the the I'm telling the truth or not lying is tied into his claim to be an apostle or his claim to be a teacher of the Gentiles.

 

I'm not sure that we know enough of the historical situation to know what was being questioned, and I don't know of if I said anything in the commentary. There's there's not. There's not real indications that Paul's apostolic ministry is being questioned. Other than that, just they're teaching stuff that's contrary to him or whether because the false teachers had a Jewish bent to them, as we saw yesterday, that at least today I'm inclined to think it's the I am telling the truth is geared toward his claim to being a teacher of the Gentiles, the very group of people that they were denying the offer of salvation to. But it's a it's a it's a wonderful passage, difficult to translate, but a passage that that should make us stop and think about. Are there any groups of people that we. Do not offer salvation to. If we had time in this class and we don't is that I was wanting to talk about this concept of his hard hands for forget the percentages. I haven't figured out how to get the words into the into the diagram yet. Is that what we're doing? We're doing a biblical training. Is that we're we're saying the head is is learning to think like Christ. And that's what lectures are geared for. But you haven't really learned the process until you've gone full circle. Education in America, religious education tends to be a little bit of piecemeal, and we're trying to find ways to make it more holistic. And so what we should be also asking yourself is our heart questions. How can I how can I learn to be like Christ? Um, in just the whole reflection stage and then hands, head, heart, hands, hands is how can I act like Christ? And in some passages like this, I think that you really need to stop and to think, Am I withholding my prayers from anyone? Am I withholding my prayers for many group of people? Republicans pray for Democrats and Democrats pray for Republicans.

 

We had we had dinner together last night. There was a reason I use that as an illustration. The whites play pray for blacks to blacks, pray for whites. The high caste system, high caste people in India pray for the Dalits to the Dalits, pray for the for the Brahman. I mean, in all cultures we've segmented ourselves and this is a real call. And if we had time, we would be doing more of this. But a real call to asking ourselves, Am I doing the same thing? The efficient churches? And I guess we all do it. I guess, as we all do it. Okay. Any comments or questions on that other than political questions which will not be entertained at this time? Yes, sir. QUESTION Think is the French thing this. Groups of people that they was asking for. The president calls teachers and it is two guys with one hand first. Saying. So first of all, I was surprised that you just got involved and said, Oh, you. Yeah, that's that's a very good point. That's a very good point. I mean, aren't chapters and verse divisions horrible? I know sometimes when I'm studying a passage, I'll just copy it out of my computer program and just get rid of everything, all verses, all paragraphs, everything. And it's so there is no chapter two in the text, you know, would be really powerful is if we knew that if Alexander Aeneas were secular rulers. That would be. And there's no way to know. Well, if this is the Alexander this mentioned in second Timothy, he's a he's a metalworker. He's a makes probably makes idols. But that doesn't mean he couldn't be a political ruler as well. You know, that's a very good point. I think if you were reading straight through ignoring chapters, you say I'm casting about two sane men.

 

First of all, you got to pray for everybody. I mean, it would be. Yeah. He goes on to talk about secular rulers. But. Yeah. Very good point. Thank you. I'll put it in the second edition. I'll grab all credit for it. But you all know that it wasn't my idea. How's that? I like that. Because, I mean, I think of the people that have that caused conflict in our churches, and especially if you get to the point where you really do need to remove them from fellowship, you know, are they the next major object of prayer on Wednesday night kind of thing? Probably not. But have we not all in our lives and we pray for that. Some people we haven't heard from before. God has changed our relationship. Right. Right. Right. So how much is our goal? To make connection? Yeah. Think of the people that perhaps have hurt you in ministry or hurt your family or something. And. And you start just by sheer force of discipline, of something else. Praying for them, praying that maybe someday you'll actually mean what you're praying. And then when it does, how it changes things. Yeah. I liked it. I think that's really healthy, just spiritually. They've removed him from fellowship, an immense amount of conflict. You guys. You got to be praying for him. Okay. Yeah. Thanks. Good point. Well, then what we're going to do is let's go ahead and look at to 8 to 10 and then we're going to take a break, because what Paul is doing now is that certainly oh, by the way, I'm meant to mention this. What is the context starting in chapter two? Is there context or when he says, pray what prayers? I mean, by piling up all those kinds of prayers, he's just emphasizing that all kinds of prayer, supplications, request Thanksgiving, that every kind of prayer be made for everyone.

 

But are we talking about private prayer life or, you know, small group per life or Sunday morning type prayer? And for me, the controlling thing is in chapter three, when you get to the end of all of this. He says, verse 14, I hope to come to you soon. But I'm writing these things to you so that if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of truth. Now the church is people. The church is not the building or the institution or Sunday morning. We are. We all know that. So but it seems to me that what we're dealing with here is issues related to corporate worship. And for me, 314 and following is the main indicator that beginning at chapter two, we're talking about how do we conduct ourselves when we're together. A lot of the issues in chapters two and three don't make any sense unless you assume that the setting is a bunch of Christians meeting together. Okay. I don't permit a woman to teach of authority over a men. What's the context? Yeah, it's and so that's what I'm saying. This whole issue of what's the context, especially when it comes to that verse 12, becomes very, very important. So I think starting in chapter two, verse one, we're dealing with with corporate worship, public times together, and maybe there are implications that carry out into our private life. So when I see these prayers, I'm thinking of what we do and we all gather as a as the church and as we pray together corporately, that that's that's that's just my take on all this. And again, one of the reasons is, you see, I don't know how to make sense of verses eight, nine and ten.

 

I mean, we're clearly in a corporate setting in these verses. All right. So let's look at to 8 to 10 within the context of corporate worship. Things are a mess in Ephesus. That's. That's the safe thing to say, especially in the worship service. Even during public prayer, men were angry with one another. Can you imagine? One of the one of the great stories of victory that I heard was a friend of mine was a pastor at church in Vancouver. And it was it was a horrible, horrible church situation. And he brought in peacemakers and they took it really worked. And the Sunday after peacemakers left and I don't know how long peacemakers tends to hang around a couple of months, don't they? Something like that. You know, the organization Peacemakers. Oh, my goodness. Yeah. It's an organization that'll come into a church that's being split. And where there's deep, deep problems and they will help you and your leadership walk through the process of reconciliation. If you are in a if you are in a difficult issue, call not Ghostbusters, call peacemakers. It's it's a marvelous organization. Anyway, the peacemakers came. They did their work. The next Sunday, John was getting ready to preach. And all of a sudden, one of the men that had really been causing a lot of the trouble just stood up in the church service and said, I have something I need to say. John goes, Oh, no. And he turned to a man sitting in the side of the church and he said, Um, I have hated you for 20 years, and I've done everything I can to make your life miserable. And I'm sorry. Yeah, you know. You know? So can you conceive of a situation where. Where men are in corporate times or prayer? Being angry and calling.

 

Yes. Yes, you can. This is just the nature of our churches. But there's even during public prayer, the men were angry with each other. And as we'll see, some of the women were extravagant and perhaps more importantly, were sexual in their dress. Their hair was just right. But what was inside was all messed up. So this is the this is the situation that Paul now turns to address this incredible mess that happens during corporate worship. So he starts with the men in verse eight. He says, I desire then that in every place or probably in every house, church, everywhere, throughout emphasis, this is what I want to happen. But the men should pray. How do they pray? They pray with lifting holy hands. And what do I mean by holy? I mean without anger or quarreling. So is addressing a situation where the anger among the men is so great that it even manifests itself during times of corporate prayer. So that's his first message that he has to this mess of public worship. Now, he is not saying that only men pray and versus obviously been used to say that first Corinthians 11 five guarantees that women have a have a vocal public role in worship. Right. They can they can pray and prophesy. They just have to do it the right way. But they're guaranteed a public role in worship. So it can't be saying that only men should pray. And I don't think it's saying that you have to pray by lifting up your hands. I remember being at a Christian concert once where the singer said, Now everyone raise their hand. You have to. The Bible says, you have to raise your hands to pray. That's not at all what it's saying.

 

The standard Jewish position in prayer was to stand. I had a shoulder surgery a while back, so I'm still not able to get this hand up. So excuse me. This is not a theological statement. They would stand, they would lift their hands. The palms were outstretched to God, head up, eyes wide open. That's the standard way in which Jewish men would pray. I don't know if the women would pray that way. I assume they would. Now we know there are other ways that people pray, right? Jesus was on his face in a cemetery. I mean, there are the how you pray is not mandated. So this isn't a demand that we we lift up our hands, but it is a demand that our prayers not be characterized by anger and quarreling. And that's the point of the verse. That when you pray, your hands must be holy. And by holy I mean stop with the anger. Deal with the anger. Deal with the calling. I wish Paul had mentioned why the men were angry. I'd be interested to know what they were angry about. They could have been angry about the false teachers teaching. Or they could have been just angry. Men. Do you find it a general characteristic that we respond in anger and are pretty comfortable living in anger? Yes, I mean, just generalizations are generally true with many exceptions, but I have, in my experience with myself and with leading a church, I found that men, much more so than women are very comfortable, can become very comfortable living in anger. It's just. Part of how we are wired very generically, very generally. And so my guess is that the men in offices just hadn't dealt with their anger and they were angry.

 

They were maybe I mean, and. Think of all the fighting over secret sensitive services. Let me just take that as an example. Ever meet anyone who's just really angry about that? I have. I've met a lot of people. And, you know, I go, Let's see, you're angry that finally large sections of the church are waking up to the fact that people who live in the community are going to hell, and maybe you should do something about it. Really? That's what you're angry about. I don't you know, I it's I think there's problem with seeker sensitive kind of churches when they're only seeker sensitive. I think the great Commission is both baptizing and teaching everything. I think that churches have to be involved in evangelism and churches have to be involved in discipleship if they're going to be a great commission church But frankly, I'm glad that that large segments of the American church have finally woken up to the fact that we're not a country club and we don't get together to be with our best buddies and just to hang out and do nothing but spend money on ourself was at 93% of all money given to the American church goes to itself. 7% goes outside of itself. I mean, that's terrible. So. But boy, have I heard arguments. And we've all heard angry arguments. I, I remember one person brought a series of tapes to me that said Rick Warren was the anti-Christ. And they seriously and they they wanted me to read Senores, I said they. They wanted me to read it. A person came and they wanted me. But that was because I didn't want to reveal the gender. Anyway, they came to me and they said, You got. You got it.

 

You know, I hate it when people give me things I have to read because I've got 800 million books I have to read. Anyway, I looked at this and was Rick Warren the Antichrist? And I said. Has this past year ever done anything constructive or building or positive in his ministry, or does he conceive of his ministry as I am an anti Rick Warren Church? And they didn't like me asking it that way. But they know this is this is his ministry is to alert people to the fact that Rick Warren is in a crisis. And so the only thing they do is negative and tear down. Yeah. So I'm not going to listen to that. I mean, this person was completely justified in in this angry, angry approach to someone that I really respect. I'm not going to listen to those things. Men are comfortable in their anger. Unfortunately, not all men, but many men. And so Paul deals with this right up front. You've you've got to deal with your anger. You've got to deal with your quarreling. It's coming out even in your corporate worship time, because I'd really like to know how it came out. Lord, I really pray for David. I mean, David's the Republican and God you are. And he's proud of it. I mean, how how would your anger come out during voter? I don't know. It's kind of fun to think. I guess I've got to put the two together. I've seen conflict and destruction through right after this kind of stuff. Stephen seeking something almost like the white man fighting over losing the war. Yeah, the church, you know, having established clergy. Right, Right. Yeah, I think being angry over who's in power. Who's not in power.

 

Yeah. Anyway, the men in Ephesus were angry. The women, on the other hand, were being incredibly disruptive. And it had to do not only with their clothing, but with how they were conducting themselves. Now, you remember in in Corinth, and I think there's probably some overlap. I mean, Corinth in emphasis for two major economic centers, you would think there'd be some overlap. But the specific problem in Corinth was the women felt that they were free and Christ free from all things. And so you're familiar with the whole hairstyles business that if you were a proper woman, and especially if you were married, your hair was always pulled back in a bun tightly against your hair. If you were a prostitute looking for business, you would let it loose. And part of the horrible misogynist nature of that culture is that if you were even accused of being an adulterous, your hair was let loose. So you're guilty before proven you were you were made to look like a whore, a prostitute, even before you were found out to be guilty or innocent anyway. Uh, but they were apparently feeling that they were so free in Christ that they were free from normal restraints relative to their marriage. And they were dressing like prostitutes and proud of it. So that's some of the stuff going on in Corinth. And I think some of that's bleeding over into emphasis as well because of how the women were conducting themselves, Paul says. Likewise, I desire this for men. Likewise, I desire also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel. And this adorning. What am I? What do I mean by respectable? I mean, it should be modest. It should be a showing of self-control. Let me get specific, he says.

 

I'm saying don't dress yourself with braided hair and with gold or pearls. Don't dress yourself in costly attire. You see, I'm thinking there's two different things being said, but rather you should respectable. The perishable apparel means that you are wearing what is proper for women who profess godliness, who profess to have their lives fully dedicated to God. I mean, ultimately that means that your clothes doing good works. So you can see the kind of the flow of Paul's thoughts. Yeah. Which you discussed very briefly. I know there's not replaced, but the length of Santos. Now, what if what they're saying there? Well, the link is Greek likes to assume things in parallel construction. If you have two things that are parallel, two sentences or two parts of a sentence, they don't feel the need to repeat something. That's from the first part in the second part. And so you have you have a verb. And to eight boola my I desire. Um. Men to pray. And then in verse nine, you have likewise women. You don't have the repetition of I desire and you don't have. Oh, yeah, but you do have an infinitive. So the parallel constructions you have, I desire men to pray. Women caused me to close themselves. But you don't have the repetition of the other verb I desire. But that's just normal Greek. There's. There's nothing unusual in that. Is it possible that the infinitive. Is it possible that the debt that Paul has in mind? The whole notion of prayer with regard to prayer. This and I will with regard to women. Even though they're just saying that. It seems to me that. But given past one. Focus on crater. If you come back and you have this sort of corporate say that prayer and parish.

 

For worship in general. And. Because. I won't win for anything holding hands or women to pray for modestly. With and without anger and with an attitude. The problem is that there is a second infinitive and then they're parallel to each other. And I think there'd have to be some other pretty strong contextual reason for saying that instead of it being women's conduct in worship, it would be women's conduct in prayer. And so the fact that you have I want men to pray. Likewise, women do clothes. I think you'd have to have a pretty strong indication that is that it's clothing in relative to prayer. And I don't I don't think I'd be comfortable with that. All right. What's going on here? Likewise. Also, the women should adorn themselves in respectable attire with modesty and self-control, not with costly attire. Costly attire is a means extravagant. We have examples of costly attire costing 7000 denarii. So how many years would a day laborer have to work in order to buy the dress this woman is wearing? 365. Divided into 7000, whatever that is. We're not talking about a suit from Nordstrom's. All right. We're talking about, you know, Oscar level kind of clothing. Right. You know, dresses that simply it would literally take me years to make enough money to buy. And so you can imagine you're in these house churches. And the church generally drew from poor people more than rich, but it did draw some from rich. And you can imagine a gal walking into the service. Wearing your house. That's what was going on. And, you know, you have cultural divides and class divides and all kinds of things going on. But they were apparently wearing really, really, really expense somewhere expensive clothing.

 

In fact, it was so expensive that Paul says that what you're wearing contradicts your claim to be godly, that there is a point at which if your clothing is so expensive that there's a you just can't believe that you you really are a godly person by what you based on what you are wearing. But there's a second note here that's just as important. Not only was this clothing really, really expensive, but secondly, it was sexually enticing. And the documentation is all in the commentary, but the words that Paul are using have double and two levels of meaning. For example, the word translated modesty also, but actually both words translated modesty and self-control have sexual connotations. So it's not just that they were expensive clothing, but they were clothing that wasn't modest, that did not show self-restraint on the part of the women. So it was sexually enticing clothing, the kind of clothing that suggests marital unfaithfulness or promiscuity. But there's there's even more in these words, because it's not just the sexual connotation. It's the words refer to a person's attitudes, the demeanor, how how she's carrying herself. The words translated both adorn and respectable, can refer to clothing and deportment, then a person's demeanor. So what you have is the situation of these girls coming in who are claiming to be godly, but they're wearing clothing that says they're not. They're wearing clothing that's extravagantly expensive. And I would guess more significantly is sexually enticing. And it's not just the clothing. It's how they're wearing the clothing, how they are conducting themselves. And he's he's saying this whole ball of wax is completely improper for someone who claims to be godly. And rather is instead of focusing on. Your clothing and how you carry yourself.

 

What you should focus on are good works. This is actually a verse that drives my kids nuts. They're always trying to get me to cut my hair differently. Dad, you've had the same haircut for 30 years, and. And my answer is, I don't want to draw attention to how I look based on my hair color and clothing. I've always tried to. Fix things in a just a very neutral way. I. I would rather be defined by who I am and how we live out my life. And they know that you didn't, you know, do this. You know, I don't want to draw attention to that. That's not actually, I think it's contrary. Um, I, I Why do you want so much attention? I don't get my kids. I got great kids, but it's an I'm not a woman. But this was kind of my application to this. Why do you why is this so important, if efficient ladies, that you spend so little time on things that are truly godly? And why are you conducting yourself in a way that's only going to separate out the different classes and are going to be problematic for men? That's that's what's going on. And I'm sure all of us have experienced this. And ladies coming to the church service was, you know, low cut sweaters on and and we're standing up there and we're supposed to be praying, right? It's just hard, right? Oh, come on. Give me a break. Yeah, it's. It's hard. And I remember there were times that there were certain gals in the church that I just. I said, you know, I'm trying to focus on a sermon, and you're trying to get me to focus on something else, and I'm just. I'm not going to go there, you know, I'm just going to preach to this side of the church, if that's what it takes.

 

Um, so the problem extends today. The solution was to put the emphasis to to define true beauty were really matters, and that is in the heart. And that is how you live your life and the kind of of a person you are. Don't place your priority on fixing your hair. Be closed in good works. Live the kind of life that is in accordance with true godliness. That's what's going on. It doesn't mean you can't wear clothes for Nordstrom. You know, it's just that's not what it's saying. But it's saying it's an issue of priorities, I think. And what's what are your priorities? And my priorities are to be known as a man of character, not of someone who. Wants to wear dreadlocks, too. Why are you would wear dreadlocks? I don't know. The This, of course, is the passage that is certainly in the Nazarene tradition. And my guess is in other traditions has caused so much trouble. It says you do not adorn yourselves with braided hair and gold or pearls. And in your phrasing, I have with gold, and that shouldn't be in there. So you can cross that out. Please. That doesn't belong there. This is not saying braided hairs are wrong. It's not saying that wearing a gold ring or pearl earrings is wrong. What historically is going on is that if you want to do it to affirm your high class position, then you would just think of Marie Antoinette. You would you would tie your hair up in those horrible buns they wore. I can't stand buns, but that's just me. And they would braid their hair and then they would tie it all back and then to indicate their social class. They would start putting gold and pearls into the hair.

 

It was. It was how they decorated them. Maybe roughly equivalent. Today it's walking around with a five carat diamond. Right. But using jewelry, too. And I'm not saying Emerald is a five carat diamond is this kind of person. That may have been a bad illustration, but it's it's don't do the social things that people do to affirm your high social status in the church. That's not how you define who you are. You define who you are by how you live out your life. I just when I got married and have any money, I didn't have money to buy Robin's ring. But my great grandma, um, no, my grandma, uh, my dad had his mom's diamond, and they gave me grandma's diamonds. So that was Robin's diamond. And we just were coming up on our 30th anniversary, and I thought it was time to buy actually buy my wife for a diamond. And I was going to buy her a new ring. And our daughter had an absolute hissy fit. So I said, Okay, how about if I just replace the diamond? I'd rather be my diamond than grandma's? And my daughter said, Okay, who gets the old diamond? Hmm. That's not a very difficult one to figure out, daughter. Anyway, so two weeks ago, we, uh, we we did this big, sneaky thing where said, Well, you need to get your ring cleaned and, well, let's just drop it off of the jewelry and he'll clean it, make sure the prongs are all good. And he didn't want to do it. She I finally convinced her to do it. Then when I gave it back to her, it had a different diamond on it. So that was my 30th anniversary present. But it was very interesting getting the diamond.

 

Because Robin's not a God is surely person. And I go, I want to get it. I want to get something that says, I've loved you for 30 years. I'm going to love you for another 30 years and forever. I mean, I wanted something. I mean, it was just what she had before was really small then. Anyway, um, but I know my wife very well to know that if I got too big of a diamond, she wouldn't wear it. She would just be know I'm uncomfortable. It's too showy. It's this kind of stuff and so set on a certain size and she loves it. And and I got kudos for a good 30th anniversary present. Anyway, you can you can wear gold, you can braid your hair. Women, you can have gold and pearls. That's not the issue. The issue is where are my priorities? How do I define who I am and am I going to dress myself in such a way that I drawing all the attention to myself? Externally rather than who I am before God. I think that's the issue.